Posts tagged ‘compensation’
Compensation: Pitchforks or Penalties
Currently there is witch hunt under way to get rid of excessive compensation levels, especially in the financial and banking industries. Members of Congress and their constituents are looking to reign in the exorbitant paychecks distributed to the fat-cat executives at the likes of Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and the rest of the banking field. According to The Financial Times, Goldman has set aside $16.7 billion so far this year for compensation and benefits and pay is on track to meet or exceed the $661,000 employee average in 2007. The public is effectively calling these executive bankers “cheaters” because they are receiving benefits they don’t deserve. The backlash resembles the finger-pointing we see directed at the wealthy steroid abusers in football or cork-bat swingers in baseball. Americans seem OK with big payouts as long as they are achieved in a fair manner. No one quibbles with the billions made by Bill Gates or Warren Buffett, but when you speak of other wealth cheaters like Jeff Skilling (Enron), Bernie Ebbers (WorldCom), or Dennis Kozlowski (Tyco), then the public cringes. The reaction to corporate crooks is similar to the response provoked by steroid use allegations tied to Major League Baseball players (i.e., Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens).
Less clear are the cases in which cheaters take advantage of a system run by regulators (referees) who are looking the other way or have inadequate rules/procedures in place to monitor the players. Take for example the outrage over $165 million in bonuses paid to the controversial AIG employees of the Financial Products division. Should AIG employees suffer due to lax rules and oversight by regulators? There has been no implication of illegal behavior conducted by AIG, so why should employees be punished via bonus recaptures? The rules in place allowed AIG to issue these lucrative Credit Default Swap (CDS) products (read more about CDS) with inadequate capital requirements and controls, so AIG was not shy in exploiting this lack of oversight. Rule stretchers and breakers are found in all professions. For example, Lester Hayes, famed All-Pro cornerback from the Oakland Raiders, used excessive “Stickum” (hand glue) to give himself an advantage in covering his opponents. If professionals legally operate within the rules provided, then punishments and witch hunts should be ceased.
Regulators, or league officials in sports, need to establish rules and police the players. Retroactively changing the rules after the game is over is not the proper thing to do. What the industry referees need is not pitchforks, but rather some yellow flags and a pair of clear glasses to oversee fair play.
Cash Givers Should Make the Rules
What should regulators and the government do when it comes to compensation? Simply let the “cash givers” make the rules. In the case of companies trading in the global financial markets, the shareholders should drive the rules and regulations of compensation. “Say on pay” seems reasonable to me and has already gained more traction in the U.K. On the other hand, if shareholders don’t want to vote on pay and feel more comfortable in voting for independent board members on a compensation committee, then that’s fine by me as well. If worse comes to worse, shareholders can always sell shares in those companies that they feel institute excessive compensation plans. At the end of the day, investors are primarily looking for companies whose goal it is to maximize earnings and cash flows – if compensation plans in place operate against this goal, then shareholders should have a say.
When it comes to government controlled entities like AIG or Citigroup, the cash givers (i.e., the government) should claim their pound of flesh. For instance, Kenneth Feinberg, the Treasury official in charge of setting compensation at bailed-out companies, decided to cut compensation across the board at American International Group, Citigroup, Bank of America, General Motors, GMAC , Chrysler, and Chrysler Financial for top executives by more than 90% and overall pay by approximately 50%.
Put Away the Pitch Forks
In my view, too much emphasis is being put on executive pay. Capital eventually migrates to the areas where it is treated best, so for companies that are taking on excessive risk and using excessive compensation will find it difficult to raise capital and grow profits, thereby leading to lower share prices – all else equal. Government’s job is to partner with private regulators to foster an environment of transparency and adequate risk controls, so investors and shareholders can allocate their capital to the true innovators and high-profit potential companies. Too big to fail companies, like AIG with hundreds of subsidiaries operating in over 100 countries, should not be able to hide under the veil of complexity. Even in hairy, convoluted multi-nationals like AIG, half a trillion CDS exposure risks need to be adequately monitored and disclosed for investors. That why regulators need to take a page from other perfectly functioning derivatives markets like options and futures and get adequate capital requirements and transparency instituted on exchanges. I’m confident that market officials will penalize the wrongdoers so we can safely put away the pitch forks and pull out more transparent glasses to oversee the industry with.
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management and its clients do not have a direct position in Goldman Sachs (GS), AIG, Berkshire Hathaway, BRKA/B, Citigroup (C), Enron, General Motors, GMAC , Chrysler, WorldCom, or Tyco International (TYC) shares at the time this article was originally posted. Sidoxia Capital Management and its clients do have a direct position in Bank of America (BAC). No information accessed through the Investing Caffeine (IC) website constitutes investment, financial, legal, tax or other advice nor is to be relied on in making an investment or other decision. Please read disclosure language on IC “Contact” page.
Now You See It, Now You Don’t: TARP
Elizabeth Warren, who oversees the TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program), along with being the Chair on the Congressional Oversight Panel and a professor at the Harvard Law School, goes out on a limb and candidly states, “ We not only don’t know [where the TARP money is], Maria, we’re not ever going to know.”
Ms. Warren is quick to blame former Treasury Secretary Henry “Hank” Paulson for not implementing accountability for the TARP funds handed to the large commercial and investment banks (see my earlier TARP article). How do you prove the money handed over to the banks was used for non-lending activities, such as marketing, compensation, television advertising, dividends, acquisitions or other corporate purposes other than lending? The short answer…you can’t! Even if TARP capital tracking was instituted, I think it would have been a fruitless effort since even legitimate use of the TARP funds would only free up additional capital for other suboptimal purposes. If my mom gave me $100 while I was struggling for money in college and told me to use it for food – well I, like a good chunk of students, would have eaten anyways without the handout. The windfall $100 bailout would likely be used for a guys trip to Las Vegas or some Laker basketball tickets. The banks will certainly lend, but not at the same pre-Lehman bankruptcy levels, regardless of whether TARP tracking was instituted or not. Ms. Warren correctly points out that regulators are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. The government wants banks to lend more (which reduces the bank’s capital base) and also raise their sickly reserve levels at the same time.
See TARP commentary on CNBC video interview at minute 2:48
Maria Bartiromo also probes the topic of executive pay compensation given a recent Congressional proposal that TARP recipients cut salaries of the top 25 executives by -90%. Seems like a reasonable request given the circumstances. However, having the government force banks into making bad loans is probably not the right answer. This stance will only force the banks to take higher loan deliquency provisions and recognize more potential writedowns in the future. Eventually the Fed will cut interest rates paid to banks on the reserves held at the central bank, thereby invcentivizing the banks to take advantage of the steeper yield curve and make handsome spreads on loans.
Until then, some of the banks will sit patiently on their TARP capital (not lending) while Ms. Warren and government officials will wonder how the billions of TARP bailouts magically disappeared.
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management and its clients had a direct position in VFH and BAC shares at the time this article was originally posted. No information accessed through the Investing Caffeine (IC) website constitutes investment, financial, legal, tax or other advice nor is to be relied on in making an investment or other decision. Please read disclosure language on IC “Contact” page.
Nation’s CEOs Suffering Severely: Pay Down -0.08%
Hold on, let me pull out my violin to play some sympathetic consoling music for our nation’s Chief Executive Officers (CEOs). According to a Corporate Library survey of 2,700 publicly traded companies, CEO compensation declined -0.8% in 2008. I guess that 4th Ferrari and 3rd yacht will have to be put on hold. With some creative perseverance and a little elbow grease, I’m sure the class of underprivileged CEOs can still salvage a healthy package of stock options and restricted stock (to pad the paltry multi-million dollar salaries).
This is what Payscale.com had to say in a report from 2008:
“In 1970, CEO salary and bonus packages were typically about $700,000 – 25 times the average production worker salary; by 2000, CEO salaries had jumped to almost $2.2 million on average, 90 times the average salary of a worker, according to a 2004 study on CEO pay by Kevin J. Murphy and Jan Zabojnik. Toss in stock options and other benefits, and the salary of a CEO is nearly 500 times the average worker salary, the study says.”
Of course, Congress and the public are looking for scapegoats to blame for the global financial crisis. There is no better group to blame than highly compensated CEOs. As a result, we are seeing more “say on pay” proposals brought to shareholder votes, thereby removing power from the hands of self-appointed compensation committees and chummy board members. Currently, a Shareholder Bill of Rights Act is making its rounds through Congress that would establish an annual shareholder vote to approve executive compensation of executive management along with have a separate vote on “golden parachute” payments in the context of a company merger or acquisition.
The U.S. is not the only country to implement these types of shareholder rights. As David Ellis at CNN Money wrote, “In 2002, the United Kingdom embraced the practice, and it has subsequently been taken up in Australia and Sweden.” In the U.S. such proposals being considered are on a “non-binding” basis, which means that if “say on pay” is approved there will be no obligation for management to implement the changes – rather “shame” will be the strategic lever used by shareholders.
Everyone has been impacted in one shape or form by the financial crisis, so when you tuck-in your child or lay your head on the pillow tonight, rest assured our poor corporate CEOs are sharing in the pain…just remember, they only kept 99.2% of their pay last year.
Read More About Corporate Library Survey
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
Banking Pigs Back at the Trough
Sooey! With some of the TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) government loans paid back, it appears that the malnourished pigs of the banking sector are hungry again and back at the trough for loftier pay packages. A recent Wall Street Journal article pointed out Goldman Sachs is on track to pay its employees $20 billion in 2009, almost double the compensation of 2008, and forking out even a higher average ($700,000 per employee) than 2007.
Beyond gluttonous appetites, these banking execs are attempting to make pigs fly as well. Like a magician using the art of illusion to move an object from one shell to the next, or divert attention with smoke and mirrors, these large Wall Street banks are shuffling around their compensation plans. A recent Bloomberg article noted that Citigroup Inc. is moving to raise base salaries by as much as 50% to help counterbalance reductions in annual bonuses. Citigroup is particularly in hot water because the U.S. bank received $45 billion in government fund assistance. According to the Wall Street Journal, similar trends are bubbling up at Zurich-based UBS, where executives raised banker base pay by 50%. Bank of America also said in March 2009 it may boost salaries as a percentage of total compensation. The banks are hoping that reducing bonuses tied to risky behavior, while raising salaries, will appease the regulators.
The governments “pay czar,” Kenneth Feinberg, may have something to say about these inflating compensation trends. The WSJ points out:
Feinberg will have the authority to regulate compensation for 175 executives at seven companies, including Citigroup, that received “exceptional” government help.
As a rule of thumb, securities firms generally pay out approximately 50% of revenue in employee compensation. Bonuses have traditionally made up about two-thirds of bankers’ total compensation. Compensation consultant Alan Johnson in New York says salaries typically range from $80,000 to $300,000, with bonuses often adding millions of dollars. The article goes onto highlight the five biggest Wall Street firms awarded their employees a record $39 billion of bonuses in 2007. Sparking some of this heated debate stems from the eye-popping bonuses paid out to Merrill employees before the Bank of America merger. Merrill Lynch emptied $14.8 billion out of its wallet for pay and benefits last year before it was acquired by Bank of America – the New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is investigating $3.6 billion of the bonuses (tied mostly to payments made in December 2008).
To protect themselves, firms like Morgan Stanley and UBS have also added “clawback” provisions that allow portions of a worker’s bonus to be recouped under certain scenarios if the firms are harmed by an employee in the future. Perhaps this will create a disincentive for harmful behavior, but likely not enough to pacify the regulators
The pigs have regained their appetites and are eagerly awaiting for some more fixings at the trough. Time will tell if 2009 can produce squeals of swinish satisfaction or will regulators take the bankers to an unfortunate visit to the butchers?
Investing Caffeine 
